The National Rifle Association is set to face off against the state of Florida in federal court on Oct. 22, marking a pivotal moment in a six-year legal battle over gun rights.
The case challenges a 2018 law that prohibits individuals under the age of 21 from purchasing rifles and long guns.
This legislation was passed in the aftermath of the tragic shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, where a 19-year-old gunman killed 17 people, prompting lawmakers to take swift action on gun control.
Initially, a federal judge sided with the state, upholding the law as a reasonable public safety measure. However, the case was revived after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen in 2022, which reshaped the legal landscape for Second Amendment cases. The ruling emphasized that courts must examine gun control laws based on historical firearm regulations.
With this new precedent in place, the NRA renewed its challenge, arguing that Florida’s law fails to align with the nation’s founding traditions of gun regulation.
The NRA’s argument centers around the assertion that the law infringes upon the Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights of young adults aged 18 to 20 years old. In a brief filed on July 31, the NRA’s lead attorney for this case, John Parker Sweeney, wrote, “The right to keep and bear arms necessarily protects the ability to acquire them, and purchase is the most common, most important, and often only available method of acquisition. Any law that hinders the exercise of Second Amendment rights, as the young adult ban does here, triggers the state’s burden to affirmatively prove a historical tradition.”
The state argues that the law is a necessary adaptation to prevent future tragedies like Parkland. In a brief filed on August 30, Florida’s legal defense emphasized the historical context and public safety concerns surrounding the law. Using a direct quote from the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rahimi, the lawyers wrote that “the Second Amendment ‘permits more than just those regulations identical to ones that could be found in 1791.’”
Lawyers representing the Biden administration also submitted a brief on August 30 stating that the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Rahimi case reinforces the Florida law. They emphasized that “federal age-based restrictions on the commercial sale of handguns align with the Second Amendment,” highlighting the government’s stance on maintaining certain regulations aimed at protecting public safety.
The outcome of this lawsuit could greatly affect gun laws across the country. If the NRA wins, it might lead to fewer age restrictions, making it easier for young adults to buy firearms. This worries gun control advocates, who fear it could increase gun-related incidents, especially in light of recent mass shootings.
On the other hand, if Florida wins, it could confirm that age restrictions are legal and encourage lawmakers to create stricter gun laws aimed to protect public safety. This case could be a crucial moment in the ongoing debate over gun rights.